So this guarantees that no low-income people can attend the local school?

I think this is a sideways way of looking at it. The rules exist so that people who live in the district and pay taxes in the district are able to attend the public schools in the district. If the woman in the OP lived in the district, it wouldn't matter what her income was. The problem is not her income. It is that she does not live in the district.

So this guarantees that no low-income people can attend the local school?

I think this is a sideways way of looking at it. The rules exist so that people who live in the district and pay taxes in the district are able to attend the public schools in the district. If the woman in the OP lived in the district, it wouldn't matter what her income was. The problem is not her income. It is that she does not live in the district.

The OP and others have repeatedly stated that the mother is low income, so she cannot possibly live in the district. To me, that is the sideways way of looking at it.

If the OP had stated her other suspicions, aside from the income, there probably would be less argument. But just because she has a low income job, 2 children and (says she has) no alimony, it is assumed she must be guilty of fraud. I don't agree. I see no compelling evidence, other than one vague dodgy conversation, to doubt her truthfullness.

I say again, if the OP doubts she lives in the area, then by all means, report her. But to say, "She works at Walmart therefore she cannot possibly live in this neighborhood" is an interesting assumption.

So this guarantees that no low-income people can attend the local school?

I think this is a sideways way of looking at it. The rules exist so that people who live in the district and pay taxes in the district are able to attend the public schools in the district. If the woman in the OP lived in the district, it wouldn't matter what her income was. The problem is not her income. It is that she does not live in the district.

I have repeatedly asserted that the OP should trust her gut and do what she believes is right, and trust the district to sort it out.

However, as several commenters have pointed out, the unnecessary and repeated insistence that the offender could not possibly live in the district because OP believes her to have too-low of an income - EVEN THOUGH IT IS IRRELEVANT to the child's qualification to attend the school - gives the impression of snobbery.

Living in the district is absolutely a qualification to attending the school. If the lowest priced home in my district was $500k, and a parent told me she worked as a counter person at a fast food restaurant, it would be highly unlikely that they were really living in the district. Possibly, if living with a relative or some other circumstance, but otherwise impossible.

Some communities are small enough and wealthy enough that no one with a low income could live there. Pointing that out does not make the OP a snob.

No one has argued that living in the district is not a qualification. What people are arguing is the assertion that "no one with a low income could live there." There are some low-income people that manage to live in Beverly Hills. This woman could be renting a bedroom in a house in the area for herself and her 2 kids. How she lives is really no one's business but hers.

The OP has been encouraged to support her if she is suspicious that the woman is not really living in the area. But doing based soley on the fact that she has determined she can't be because of her job is premature.

The OP is not judge, jury & executioner. If she reports her the school district will have an established method of investigation.

In my high school district (Tie Magazine once called it the best in the country), 8th graders are enrolled directly at their elementary schools. Public, parochial and private students all get a visit from the counsels to register. Anyone else that wants to register must go to the township office (not the highschool). They need absolute proof of residency, and proof of guardianship/parentage. You can't just have your nephew live with you - you need to be his legal guardian.

If someone claimed to be house sharing, the district would already have you flagged. You would need to show your drivers license and file a legal affidavit under oath to verify your address. Our truant officers follow suspicious students home to verify that they actually live there. Every year there are at least a dozen fraudulent students. I feel sorry for the kids, but our district spends almost $20k per high school student. Its grand larceny.

Its absolutely illegal in my village to rent out rooms in your house. If a neighborhood is zoned single family you cannot legally turn your home into a rooming house. You cannot legally rent out your coach house in my village either.

So this guarantees that no low-income people can attend the local school? Otherwise, I am not sure what your point is. I am merely trying to state that the mother's job does not ensure that she cannot live in the district...

No what it guarantees is that no one can attend the school unless they are legally entitled to do so. If the OP's neighbor is not living in her putative housing, does not own a home, is not renting one, doesn't live with a relative, is not a live in domestic servant, then she is probably not a legal resident of the school district.

Several years ago I had an elderly neighbor who had a live in housekeeper. The housekeeper had two teenagers that lived in the house also. Those kids were absolutely entitled to go to our district school because they were actually living in the district. A lady at my church has taken in over 50 foster children in the past 30 years. Those kids were legal residents of the district. Another neighbor had her daughter and 3 kids move in with her after a divorce - also legal residents.

The OP never expressed any distaste for low income students, but honestly in some districts there are very few low income students because the cost of housing is so very high. Combine that with a fake mailing address and it is reasonable for the OP to have suspicions.

This isn't about affording the school - it's about affording to live in the district.

It's the same thing. If someone can't afford to live in the district, their kids can't get into the good school. Thus, kids whose parents don't have much money often receive sub-par educations, which leads to them having not-so-great jobs, which leads to them living in districts with crummy schools, which leads to their kids receiving sub-par educations. And on and on. It's unfair and infuriating.

It is not, however, what the OP is asking about or anything she can solve by herself. My take on the whole thing is that the OP should not contact the rule-breaker. There's no point and it will only lead to an ugly situation. I would address the matter with the school in general terms, not naming any names, and ask what steps they are taking to ensure that all the kids who do live in the district are able to attend the school. Is there a school board the issue can be raised with?

This isn't about affording the school - it's about affording to live in the district.

It's the same thing. If someone can't afford to live in the district, their kids can't get into the good school. Thus, kids whose parents don't have much money often receive sub-par educations, which leads to them having not-so-great jobs, which leads to them living in districts with crummy schools, which leads to their kids receiving sub-par educations. And on and on. It's unfair and infuriating.

It is not, however, what the OP is asking about or anything she can solve by herself. My take on the whole thing is that the OP should not contact the rule-breaker. There's no point and it will only lead to an ugly situation. I would address the matter with the school in general terms, not naming any names, and ask what steps they are taking to ensure that all the kids who do live in the district are able to attend the school. Is there a school board the issue can be raised with?

Sometimes there are districts side by side with equal funding, but different ways of spending the money. My cousin lived in a district that spent lots of money on enrichment and had top notch schools with amazing test scores. The suburb next to her (with equal finding) spent their money on fancy building projects and other things. There was a big problem with cheaters trying to get their kids into her district from the one next door.

"However, she does not primarily reside in the school district. She lives elsewhere but uses a mail drop inside the school district."

Because, when questioned, the sole evidence the OP has given is the fact that the OP works a low paying job, and one questionable conversation with the people at the person's stated place of residence.

(I don't believe that there is a policy here that we can never question OP's on the state of their assertions. We are all fallible, after all).

"However, she does not primarily reside in the school district. She lives elsewhere but uses a mail drop inside the school district."

Because, when questioned, the sole evidence the OP has given is the fact that the OP works a low paying job, and one questionable conversation with the people at the person's stated place of residence.

(I don't believe that there is a policy here that we can never question OP's on the state of their assertions. We are all fallible, after all).

There was a bit more evidence.......

"A letter addressed to her was delivered to my house. When I went to drop it off, her "mail drop" screwed up the cover story."

I think that fact the the questionable conservation raised the flags means it was indeed suspicious. And the OP has had multiple conversations with the "neighbor":

" I am sort of acquaintances with her. I see her maybe 3 times a year in the neighborhood and once she was with another neighbor at another neighborhood's July 4th street party."

Take education out of it. This is a service that OP is paying for that other people, who don't pay for it, are not entitled to. My mom lives in a neighborhood with community pools and parks. She pays HOA dues to maintain the pools/parks. My dad lives in the neighborhood just north of hers, but his neighborhood doesn't pay into the pool neighborhood HOAs. It would be wrong for my dad to go to the pool in Mom's neighborhood, even though he lives so close, or he can get to it, or Bro gave him a key. Mom and her neighbors pay for the pool.

I have a zoo membership that I buy every year. I can take guests, but I can't give SIL my card and let her go to the zoo with my pass. She didn't pay for it, and she's not entitled to use it. I realize these aren't exactly the same since Mom could invite Dad to the pool as her guest, or I could invite SIL to the zoo as my guest, but it's the best I could think of

OP, I think that if you are going to report the family, just do it. Don't contact the woman, just go to whoever is in charge and outline your concerns. I would keep it to the bare minimum and just the facts (she uses a drop box, possibly conversation you had with the person at her listed address.)

Logged

In the United States today, there is a pervasive tendency to treat children as adults, and adults as children. The options of children are thus steadily expanded, while those of adults are progressively constricted. The result is unruly children and childish adults. ~Thomas Szasz

"However, she does not primarily reside in the school district. She lives elsewhere but uses a mail drop inside the school district."

Because, when questioned, the sole evidence the OP has given is the fact that the OP works a low paying job, and one questionable conversation with the people at the person's stated place of residence.

(I don't believe that there is a policy here that we can never question OP's on the state of their assertions. We are all fallible, after all).

I actually find it quite odd that the OP, within a few minutes' acquaintanceship with the neighbour, know all the details about her income, whether she receives alimony/child support, daycare expenses etc. I'm not saying that it's unbelievable, just odd IMO. I don't know the salaries of my closest relatives/friends!

No one is "ignoring" the initial post, but many of us find the assertion that "she can't live in the district because she couldn't possibly afford to do so" completely irrelevant.

That was not the sole evidence. She said she received mail for this woman, went to the address, discovered somebody *else* living there, and that this woman uses that address as a mail drop. She then learned from somebody (I'm confused about whether it was the person actually living in that home, or not) who said that, oh yeah, this woman uses the house as a mail drop so she can get her kids into this school district. She then received further evidence when she talked to the woman herself at some point and learned that she's in a job that doesn't really pay enough to get her kids into that district, which then implied to her that the woman couldn't afford the district and that's why she's cheating. The mail was the first and strongest evidence, and I think it's enough to go to the school with if she chooses to.

"However, she does not primarily reside in the school district. She lives elsewhere but uses a mail drop inside the school district."

Because, when questioned, the sole evidence the OP has given is the fact that the OP works a low paying job, and one questionable conversation with the people at the person's stated place of residence.

(I don't believe that there is a policy here that we can never question OP's on the state of their assertions. We are all fallible, after all).

I actually find it quite odd that the OP, within a few minutes' acquaintanceship with the neighbour, know all the details about her income, whether she receives alimony/child support, daycare expenses etc. I'm not saying that it's unbelievable, just odd IMO. I don't know the salaries of my closest relatives/friends!

No one is "ignoring" the initial post, but many of us find the assertion that "she can't live in the district because she couldn't possibly afford to do so" completely irrelevant.

Because you have it backwards. She has been a casual acquaintance of the neighbor for awhile and then when she got the letter and took it to the house, the owner of the house screwed up her story.

"However, she does not primarily reside in the school district. She lives elsewhere but uses a mail drop inside the school district."

Because, when questioned, the sole evidence the OP has given is the fact that the OP works a low paying job, and one questionable conversation with the people at the person's stated place of residence.

(I don't believe that there is a policy here that we can never question OP's on the state of their assertions. We are all fallible, after all).

I actually find it quite odd that the OP, within a few minutes' acquaintanceship with the neighbour, know all the details about her income, whether she receives alimony/child support, daycare expenses etc. I'm not saying that it's unbelievable, just odd IMO. I don't know the salaries of my closest relatives/friends!

No one is "ignoring" the initial post, but many of us find the assertion that "she can't live in the district because she couldn't possibly afford to do so" completely irrelevant.

Because you have it backwards. She has been a casual acquaintance of the neighbor for awhile and then when she got the letter and took it to the house, the owner of the house screwed up her story.

There's no indication of that in post # 30 - that it was not until she took the mis-delivered letter to her. It sounds to me as though she acquired this info fairly early on.